Deltona seeks to add roughly 800 acres to Holder Industrial Park; PDC hears site, buffer and water-use questions

Deltona Corporation asked the Citrus County Planning and Development Commission on March 5 to expand the Holder Industrial Park (HIP) sub-area by roughly 798.6 acres, adding to an existing 557.4 acres and creating a combined planned industrial area of about 1,356 acres in the Hernando/Holder area near County Road 491 and U.S. 41.

The applicant’s team told commissioners the expansion is intended to make more developable, shovel-ready land available for a range of industrial tenants. Paul Gibbs, a landscape architect with Community Land Design, said much of the newly proposed area is constrained by former-mining pits and floodplain, but that roughly 500 acres of the addition would be prime development land. “This literally saves years of time if someone is interested in moving their business to Citrus County,” Gibbs said, describing prior environmental and geotechnical work and current utility investments.

In her planning report entered into the record, Avis Marie Craig, an AICP-certified planner, argued the sub-area text and map changes are consistent with Citrus County’s comprehensive plan and recommended favorable action by the PDC. “It is my professional planning opinion that the application is consistent with your adopted comprehensive plan,” Craig said, noting the sub-area policy can lock in restrictions on higher-impact uses and incorporate enhanced buffers.

Victor Liotta, an economic development consultant with Location Design Group, presented modeled fiscal and employment figures the team used to illustrate potential benefits. He said economic-impact models project roughly $105 million in new property tax revenue over 10 years and additional sales-tax receipts if compatible, higher-value industrial uses locate on the site, while cautioning that the figures are predictive and not tied to a named tenant.

Commissioners and staff pressed the applicant on several points during questioning. Several board members noted there is no identified end user and asked how projection inputs were derived; Liotta and the applicant said the models use sector-level assumptions (NAICS-based uses, typical employment and wage figures, and drive-time workforce availability) to generate conservative scenarios.

Water use and environmental oversight were recurring concerns. Counsel for the applicant and other presenters said the sub-area text would require central utilities and that the applicant has the benefit of a $2.8 million state grant to extend sanitary sewer to the site. On the issue of potential data centers — one possible, but not guaranteed, tenant type discussed during the hearing — the team proposed mandatory technology limits in the text and commitments to closed-loop liquid cooling with dry coolers to minimize potable-water consumption. Clark Stilwell, who worked on the original HIP approvals, said the proposed closed-loop systems would have a one-time consumptive use estimated in the “roughly 100,000 to 125,000 gallons” range and would seek the water-management-district permit required for any consumptive use.

Buffering and residential adjacency also featured in the discussion. The application initially proposed a 75-foot natural buffer where the expansion abuts residential parcels; staff had recommended a 100-foot buffer and the applicant indicated willingness to accept that change. The presenters noted about 39 existing parcels directly adjacent to the expansion area — including roughly 20 mobile homes and seven single-family homes — and described open-space preservation around former-mining pits as additional buffering.

Speakers repeatedly emphasized that no specific company has been identified to occupy the expansion at this time, though the applicants said the site is now more market-ready because of utilities, title clearance and prior studies. Paul Gibbs and others showed maps and slides highlighting access points (an additional access point on County Road 491 is proposed), preserved open space around deep pits, and existing transportation links.

Public comment before the application included a separate request from an adjacent property owner, Allen Ivory, who asked the county to consider writing a letter opposing a Crystal River rezoning that he said would affect property next to county-owned land. The PDC closed the public portion and moved into staff and board questioning specific to the HIP applications.

No formal PDC vote was recorded during the portion of the hearing in the transcript provided; the meeting recessed for a 10-minute break at the end of the transcript excerpt. The presentation team said it would stand ready to respond at rebuttal and would supply more detailed mitigation proposals (noise, specific water-use commitments and mapped open-space areas) when requested by the board or staff.

What happens next: the PDC will consider staff and public input, and any recommended text changes before forwarding the applications to the County Commission as required by the land-development and comprehensive-plan amendment process. The record includes a submitted planning report (01/07/2026), engineering letters on utilities and references to statutory compatibility tests under Chapter 163 cited by the applicant’s planner.